3 ms·

"Free speech" is normally about a government restriction on speech. Most people don't take it to mean temporary restrictions during specific private events. Fo

by rlpb 2y ago

"Free speech" is normally about a government restriction on speech. Most people don't take it to mean temporary restrictions during specific private events. For example, at a funeral, the norm is not to speak ill of the dead (or any other time, for that matter), and if you break that rule, you might find yourself socially excluded. But that has nothing to do with the concept of "free speech". The same goes for some kind of proceeding where you are not permitted to speak, or some situation where you are given information in confidence, or your signing of an NDA.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> "Free speech" is normally about a government restriction on speech No, this is the First Amendment. Free speech as a value is much broader [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
bawolff 2y ago
In the usa context yes, but i think its wrong to hold that the concept in general is soley about governments. E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue.
- rlpb 2y ago
  > E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue. If the police beat you up, then that's a freedom of speech issue (as well as police abuse, etc), since one might argue that the government is suppressing your speech. If a private citizen beats you up, then I disagree; it's merely a matter of assault. That's illegal anyway and your speech had little to do with it. If someone beats me up for looking at them the wrong way, I'd hardly argue that it's a "looking the wrong way" issue. I appreciate that you consider otherwise, and of course it's subjective so your view is as valid as mine. I'm just identifying that I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    If you come to my house and express a view I disagree with, and I ask you to stop talking, I'm abridging your freedom of speech. (I'm not violating your First Amendment rights.) > I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept You've got it backwards. The Athenians believed in both "isēgoriā, or equality of public speech, which was associated with formal political institutions and democratic deliberation; and parrhēsiā, the license to say anything, even (or especially) if it went against the current" [1]. The First Amendment is based on the freedom of speech in the English Parliament [2]. Millenia older. It isn't until the Warren Court, after WWII, that the modern interpretation that the First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech comes into focus [3]. [1] https://antigonejournal.com/2021/04/two-concepts-of-free-speech/ https://antigonejournal.com/2021/04/two-concepts-of-free-spe... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Right,_1689#The_13_clauses_limiting_the_power_of_the_Crown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Right,_1689#The... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
    - seabass-labrax 2y ago
      > If you come to my house and express a view I disagree with, and I ask you to stop talking, I'm abridging your freedom of speech. To what extent are you able to abridge someone's freedom, though? The only legally permitted thing you can do is to compel that person to leave. If you are hosting that person commercially, say by running a lodging house, even that option may be restricted by other laws. Legal restrictions on speech are a little different, because of the unlimited sovereign power of the law (what Max Weber called the state's monopoly on violence). The USA has a special limitation on its own sovereignty by means of a written constitution, but I do believe that only applies to government restrictions as parent said. Also, it is worth noting that the freedom of speech in Britain that you link to applies only to Members of Parliament. Nobody else is afforded freedom of speech by the Bill of Rights; other people have to look to different laws to defend themselves.
- Aaargh20318 2y ago
  Free speech only means you are not prevented from expressing yourself. It does not mean freedom from consequences. While I don’t condone violence that is not the only possible consequence. If you call me an asshole that is your right, but if I disinvite you from the party I was planning as a result that is not a ‘free speech issue’.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    > Free speech only means you are not prevented from expressing yourself. It does not mean freedom from consequences. People say this a lot but i doubt anyone actually literally believes this. If the state executes you as a consequence of your speech, it is an unambigious free speech violation no matter how you interpret that term. What people really mean is its not a blanket protection against every consequence, but they hide that part because then you have to explain which consequences are reasonable and which are not which is complicated and requires nuance.
  - watwut 2y ago
    > Free speech only means you are not prevented from expressing yourself. It does not mean freedom from consequences. Honestly, I find this to be very manipulative rhetoric. Effectively, it makes the notion of free speech mean absolutely nothing. The problem here is that people want to pretend they are for absolute free speech, because saying something else is socially punished. But they are not in reality, sometimes for good reasons, so they resort to this sort of sophistry. You can say what you want in North Korea, freely. It is just that you wont have freedom from consequence int he form of torture and death.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I don’t think it is just about government restriction. Free speech and censorship are general principles that apply to everything. But personally, I don’t think asking for confidentiality at a private event is a violation of free speech principles. On the other hand, large privately owned tech platforms that practice censorship disguised as moderation, should be criticized because they are effectively the new public square.

by rlpb 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> "Free speech" is normally about a government restriction on speech No, this is the First Amendment. Free speech as a value is much broader [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

bawolff 2y ago

In the usa context yes, but i think its wrong to hold that the concept in general is soley about governments. E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue.

rlpb 2y ago
> E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue. If the police beat you up, then that's a freedom of speech issue (as well as police abuse, etc), since one might argue that the government is suppressing your speech. If a private citizen beats you up, then I disagree; it's merely a matter of assault. That's illegal anyway and your speech had little to do with it. If someone beats me up for looking at them the wrong way, I'd hardly argue that it's a "looking the wrong way" issue. I appreciate that you consider otherwise, and of course it's subjective so your view is as valid as mine. I'm just identifying that I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  If you come to my house and express a view I disagree with, and I ask you to stop talking, I'm abridging your freedom of speech. (I'm not violating your First Amendment rights.) > I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept You've got it backwards. The Athenians believed in both "isēgoriā, or equality of public speech, which was associated with formal political institutions and democratic deliberation; and parrhēsiā, the license to say anything, even (or especially) if it went against the current" [1]. The First Amendment is based on the freedom of speech in the English Parliament [2]. Millenia older. It isn't until the Warren Court, after WWII, that the modern interpretation that the First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech comes into focus [3]. [1] https://antigonejournal.com/2021/04/two-concepts-of-free-speech/ https://antigonejournal.com/2021/04/two-concepts-of-free-spe... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Right,_1689#The_13_clauses_limiting_the_power_of_the_Crown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Right,_1689#The... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
  - seabass-labrax 2y ago
    > If you come to my house and express a view I disagree with, and I ask you to stop talking, I'm abridging your freedom of speech. To what extent are you able to abridge someone's freedom, though? The only legally permitted thing you can do is to compel that person to leave. If you are hosting that person commercially, say by running a lodging house, even that option may be restricted by other laws. Legal restrictions on speech are a little different, because of the unlimited sovereign power of the law (what Max Weber called the state's monopoly on violence). The USA has a special limitation on its own sovereignty by means of a written constitution, but I do believe that only applies to government restrictions as parent said. Also, it is worth noting that the freedom of speech in Britain that you link to applies only to Members of Parliament. Nobody else is afforded freedom of speech by the Bill of Rights; other people have to look to different laws to defend themselves.
Aaargh20318 2y ago
Free speech only means you are not prevented from expressing yourself. It does not mean freedom from consequences. While I don’t condone violence that is not the only possible consequence. If you call me an asshole that is your right, but if I disinvite you from the party I was planning as a result that is not a ‘free speech issue’.
- bawolff 2y ago
  > Free speech only means you are not prevented from expressing yourself. It does not mean freedom from consequences. People say this a lot but i doubt anyone actually literally believes this. If the state executes you as a consequence of your speech, it is an unambigious free speech violation no matter how you interpret that term. What people really mean is its not a blanket protection against every consequence, but they hide that part because then you have to explain which consequences are reasonable and which are not which is complicated and requires nuance.
- watwut 2y ago
  > Free speech only means you are not prevented from expressing yourself. It does not mean freedom from consequences. Honestly, I find this to be very manipulative rhetoric. Effectively, it makes the notion of free speech mean absolutely nothing. The problem here is that people want to pretend they are for absolute free speech, because saying something else is socially punished. But they are not in reality, sometimes for good reasons, so they resort to this sort of sophistry. You can say what you want in North Korea, freely. It is just that you wont have freedom from consequence int he form of torture and death.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

I don’t think it is just about government restriction. Free speech and censorship are general principles that apply to everything. But personally, I don’t think asking for confidentiality at a private event is a violation of free speech principles. On the other hand, large privately owned tech platforms that practice censorship disguised as moderation, should be criticized because they are effectively the new public square.